He has spent his last day as Oregon State Climatologist. Today he plans to tell the Victoria Taft Show how this excommunication happened.
Here's the story of the first dust up.
Here's a good overall coverage of it and an excerpt:Following a debate on climate change at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry last year at which Taylor expressed his contrarian ideas, Gov. Ted Kulongoski warned him to quit representing himself as the state climatologist (there is some dispute about how official the title is and whether the governor has the power to remove it).
Here's the story of losing his title.
Here's the fringe take on Taylor (of course it depicts him as a religious person (is he?) and, of course, a tool of big oil. They also claim him to deny global warming. He doesn't, of course.
Meantime, another new study--this one from no less than the IPCC--says global warming has stalled out--because of Mother Nature. But they still want you to spend trillions on "stopping" "man-made" global warming. Al Gore: carbon offsets, anyone?
The story is here. Researchers belonging to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in Nature (May 1) that, after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, “global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations… temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature.
Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
High Priest of Church of Global Warming, Kulongoski, Officially Excommunicates George Taylor
79 comments:
Don't lie and I won't have to blow up your comment.
Gee Victoria how can we make fun of comments that are blown up.
I deplore censorship for political purposes. It has no place in the science arena.
btw I phoned a friend (liberal) to protest that I want more global warming as there was an article about the oceans cooling thus stalling global warming.
Good Job Victoria: I like to use my Erase Button but that's not a bad idea to "BLOW UP COMMENTS". Maybe the Military could use some Satellite Guided Missile's on these Global Warming Nutcases.
PS: Thanks to my trusty VCR
I heard most of your show
late tonight and enjoyed
the George Taylor interview.
You should have him on once a
month or so.
Any chance of a pod cast of the interview? I missed listening to the radio last night due to work.
Heck I would even pay a few sheckles to cover costs
I certainly don't lie: George Taylor resigned of his own accord.
AP: http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_022108_news_climatologist_taylor_retires.155ae59e.html
Kulongoski did ask OSU's president to stop Taylor from calling himself the state climatologist. Is it not the governor's right to make such decisions about the Executive branch? Of course it is. Politicians frequently ask for the resignation of their employees if there views are not in alignment with the chief executives.
-=-=-
I'll also repeat again: skeptics like climate models when they show results they like; they denigrate them overwise. Fred Singer has been especially critical of climate models. So why believe them now all of a sudden?
Skeptics did the same thing with surface temperatures over the past winter.
And, in any case, a decade of slight cooling *does not* mean global warming is not an issue. GW is about the long-term climate, over decades and decades. And once started, like now, it is difficult to stop, because CO2 resides in the atmosphere for ~0.5 centuries.
David,
George Taylor was forced out he as much said so. I realize saying this hurts your faith in the democrat "leadership" of this state and makes them look parochial, but deal.
You look foolish making the comment about now using the IPCC comment. The newsworthy aspect here (as if I had to spell it out for you) is that they've gone back on their previous predictions and, in addition, are being forced to admit that NATURAL CYCLES have to do with climate.
> are being forced to admit that
> NATURAL CYCLES have to do with
> climate.
Climate scientists have, of course, always admitted that natural factors affect the climate. They're not idiots. If you read the IPCC 4AR WG1 (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm, see ch 2.7 in particular), or any paper on climate models over the last 25 years, you'll find that modelers always include natural cycle factors such as volcanic factors, solar factors, and more. See FAQ 2.1, Fig 2 (p. 136).
The problem is, when they build models that only include natural factors, they can't reproduce last century's climate. When they build models that included both natural and anthropogenic factors, they can. And they find that anthropogenic factors are getting larger with time.
Perhaps you or George Taylor have a model, or even a calculation of radiative factors, that shows that last century's climate *can be* explained with natural factors alone? If so, you should publish it -- you would get a lot of attention from scientists, I assure you. They have been trying this for decades, with no success.
That's how science is done -- not on talk shows.
As to whether Taylor resigned or was forced out, I am only repeating what the AP reported. If they were wrong, someone should tell them. In any case, I still think that the governor of a state has the right to put people in positions where they can speak for and represent. Ever other governor, president, and executive in the world does exactly the same thing.
And in this case, Taylor really is outside the mainstream. Nothing wrong with that -- but he hasn't proven he's right, via the scientific method, he just expresses an opinion.
P.S.: Be sure to read the IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 9.2 p 702: "Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Note, in particular, Fig 1 on the next page, p 703. See the three small graphs at the bottom of that figure? These are big reasons *why* climate scientists now believe that anthropogenic factors are having a large effect on our climate -- only by including them can you explain last century's climate -- and, therefore, this century's climate.
David,
How are you personnally going to counter the production of CO2 into the atmosphere. You along everyone else exhales CO2 including animals. Don't you think there should be a personal cost that everyone should pay or do such as periodically not exhaling.
How about all politicians and elected officials setting an example by paying a hefty carbon tax or holding their breath for extended periods to offset their hot air?
David, are you really that dense? That he resigned just means that he chose the graceful way of leaving rather than being thrown out head first with the rest following, much like the "you can't fire me, I quit" approach.
You know, the beauty of global warming is that it can't be proven until after the government has dropped the hammer on us and forced us all to adapt to it. And your protest is disingenuous... if a skeptic criticizes one climate model then points to one that is more accurate (i.e. criticizing a climate model trying to track global temperature increases onto CO2 then pointing to one that shows global temperature increases coiinciding strongly with solar emissions), he's simply distinguishing between a bad model and a good one. In my example, the good one is visibly better even to the untrained eye.
Interesting enough, David, their models claiming an increasing anthropogenic effect cannot replicate the starting conditions that led to their prediction. In other words, they run it forwards and it says that the temperature will rise so much by 2050. When they start at 2050 and run it backwards, the model produces different starting conditions. If you stick 1 + 1 into a computer and it produces 2, this is well and good. But then when you input 2 - 1 and get 0, there's something seriously wrong with the computer. If a model run backwards cannot produce the original inputs then the model is flawed and unless you can determine the direction in which it is flawed, neither result can be valid.
As to the last thing, it proves nothing except that human activity has increased along with temperature. Correlation does not prove cause, just that two factors moved in tandem. So did human activity cause it go get warmer or did the increase in overall temperature encourage increased human activity? This graph doesn't tell us which, sorry.
Kodiak, the average human exhales about 1 kg CO2/day. On the other hand, we produce about 20 tons/yr (I think that's about about 120 kg/day) a day from the activities that support our lifestyle.
So you see, breathing isn't the problem. We and the Earth would never have evolved to this point if it were.
We can/should try to conserve energy as much as possible -- you know all the usual ways. But that won't be near enough -- we must develop carbonless technologies to run our civilization, and eliminate almost all uses of fossil fuels.
This will be very big job, perhaps even undoable, and we should get started yesterday.
Keith, the graphs I referred to were an average of all climate models.
Every model makes slightly different assumptions, so they will all give slightly different results. Hence the averaging.
> In other words, they run it
> forwards and it says that the
> temperature will rise so much by > 2050. When they start at 2050 and > run it backwards, the model
> produces different starting
> conditions.
Where can I read more about this?
> If a model run backwards cannot
> produce the original inputs
The models in the figure I gave earlier *were* run backwards and *did* produce the 20th century climate history, including the starting point.
> So did human activity cause it go > get warmer or did the increase in > overall temperature encourage
> increased human activity?
That's a good one -- I haven't heard it before.
In fact, we know that much of the increase in CO2 in manmade, by studying the isotopes of C13 an C14 in the atmosphere's CO2. Fossil fuel produces no C14. So studying the ratio of C14/C gives you a handle on how much CO2 is manmade. Almost all of the increase in CO2 over the last couple of centuries is manmade.
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Der Spiegel: Not the End of the World as We Know It
Scientist: Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age
David,
There are limitations to computer models especially the ones that are being used to predict global warming. There are greater factors that effect global warming that cannot be adequately predicted so you have to make assumptions and if your assumptions are wrong then the results are wrong.
I would be very cautious about jumping on to the global bandwagon. I would also be hold back because the suppression of dissenters. Of which alarms me greatly based upon the arena that it has occurred in.
The Gov has politicized the position of state climatologist and is just plain wrong for doing so global warming or no global warming. What is going on with global warming is rapidly approaching a state sponsered religon.
I would for other reasons support moving from fossil fuels other than global warming. Economics and security being higher on the list than computer predicted global warming.
Kodiak wrote:
> There are limitations to computer
> models especially the ones
> that are being used to predict
> global warming.
Of course no model is perfect. But these models successfully back-predict 20th century climate. That gives you an idea that there is a good bit right about them.
Do you distrust models in other parts of your life? Take any prescription drugs or supplements, or -- they are often based on models (called lab rats). Fly in airplanes? They are built on models. Our military plans its strategy based on models. Bridges and buildings are built based on models. Our bankers and politicians make economic decisions based on models.
Do you have similar concerns there?
> There are greater factors that
> effect global warming that
> cannot be adequately predicted
Such as?
> so you have to make assumptions
> and if your assumptions are wrong > then the results are wrong.
Of course. Every modeler knows this -- again, they're not idiots. What other choice do you have, except to throw up your hands in the year 2100 and say, I guess those guys back a hundred years ago where right! Too bad they never made any models. Now we're in big trouble.
Lew Waters said...
> Survey: Less Than Half of all
> Published Scientists Endorse
> Global Warming Theory
This study is published in a notoriously anti-GW journal, "Energy & Environment," whose editor admits to being biased against the Kyoto Protocol and also says she see no problem with that. It is the journal skeptics go to when they can't get their work published anywhere else. It publishes work that is simply wrong, as I reported in the August 2003 issue of Scientific American. It is a journal with very little respect in the scientific field, and, frankly, a bit of a joke.
Kodiak wrote:
> What is going on with global
> warming is rapidly approaching a
> state sponsered religon.
Religion is based on faith, not ideas that can be proven. Science is based on ideas that *can* be proven (such as the graphs I referred to earlier). The basics of AGW have been proven over the last 25 years, and the physics of GHGs have been known for well over a century. The evidence has been well documented by several IPCC reviews.
If you have evidence or proof against it -- experiments, calculations, models, etc. -- they present them. It's insufficient to merely claim the AGW theories are wrong until you disprove them. Also you need to explain 20th century warming, and you need to explain how a 35% increase in the GHG content of our atmosphere *does not *lead to GW.
David,
Your unwillingness to accept and attempt to discredit dissent as pointed to by Lew proves my point that Global warming is a religon.
If their models correctly predicted 20th century weather then explain why they have not predicted well in advance the tornados that just occurred in Virginia.
Secondly they are predicting Global warming based upon approximately 150 years of weather data.
Look I stand by my conclusion that it is not the number 1 priority for changing energy sources.
Kodiak wrote:
> If their models correctly
> predicted 20th century weather
> then explain why they have not
> predicted well in advance the
> tornados that just occurred in
> Virginia.
Because climate and tornadoes have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Climate is the long-term (~decades) atmospheric condition. It does not make predictions of the weather, except in a statistical sense. Tornadoes are extremely short-term, extremely localized weather phenomenon.
Expecting a climate model to predict a tornado would be like expecting a Federal Reserve economic model to predict the rise in your local deli's ham sandwiches.
> Secondly they are predicting
> Global warming based upon
> approximately 150 years of
> weather data.
Actually about 400,000 years worth of climate data, gleaned from two-mile long ice cores.
> Look I stand by my conclusion
> that it is not the number 1
> priority for changing energy
> sources.
As someone who thought human exhalations were partly responsible for global warming, I don't see that your opinion has much scientific weight.
Kodiak wrote:
> Your unwillingness to accept and
> attempt to discredit dissent as
> pointed to by Lew proves my point
> that Global warming is a religon.
Look at this study: it itself says only 6% of papers reject the consensus. 45% endorse it. 48% are neutral. So what? Scientists don't go out of their way in every paper to reject or accept the consensus, like it's some kind of voting booth. Most papers focus on narrow, technical points of science and have nothing to do with the consensus or not. So this really is a meaningless statistic. No wonder it couldn't be published anywhere but E&E.
David, you and algore are the last ones left. Nobody's listening to you anymore. Go back to your mother's basement.
BEAR wrote:
> David, you and algore are the last > ones left.... Go back to your
> mother's basement.
A very intelligent, scientific, fact-filled, mature response. Thank you.
In fact, the case for AGW has never been stronger.
If you have science that refutes that, please present it and we can discuss it. As far as I can tell, you don't understand the science at all, can't converse in it, and your opinion is based on... I don't know, ideology? Rush Limbaugh?
Kodiak, I'm sorry, you really do not get any more say in this matter.
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand the science. You have repeatedly implied things that are easily shown to be false.
You clearly haven't studies this issue in much, if any, depth.
And yet you think you get a say? Sorry, bud, it doesn't work that way.
You get a say by earning it. Instead of spouting what you have learned from Rush Limbaugh, go off and read a couple of hundred scientific papers (if you are capable of it -- I sincerely doubt it), read the IPCC reports, read a few dozen books (yes, some from skeptics).
Then come back and cite some science for your position, not your stupid ignorant opinion.
This has nothing to do with whether AGW is true or false. It has to do with your intellect. It has to do with what's true, and how we find that out. You clearly have no grasp of science and yet, like many stupid, ignorant Americans, you think you get a say in the debate.
You don't. You have to earn it.
Go educate yourself. Come back in a year or two and try to say something intelligent.
This study is published in a notoriously anti-GW journal, "Energy & Environment," whose editor admits to being biased against the Kyoto Protocol and also says she see no problem with that.
Is it that you disagree with the findings that make them wrong, David?
You didn't see fit to discredit the others articles, though.
Personally, many other and I discredit the Kyoto Protocol, primarily because it exempts the worlds largest polluter currently, China. It is punitive towards the U.S. while allowing upwards of 80% of pollution creating nations off the hook.
But, what say you about this letter?
Are only the scientists that join in with the alarmism worthy of being listened to?
And, why is it the only 'fix' the alarmist is take money from oredinary citizens in the form of restrictive taxes?
Something to pique a little interest, The Environmentalist’s Real Agenda
Lew,
I am just informing you of the reputation of E&E. I've been reporting on this stuff for years. I've dissected the crap they have published (have you?). I know something about them.
The letter you quote is not science, it is opinion. Is it the tactics of people who cannot make it in the scientific arena, whose ideas do not hold up scientifically. If their ideas had merit, they would be appearing in the scientific literature. They would be speaking at scientific conferences. They would at least have some science behind them -- some proof. Are you familar with the scientific method? This letter contains no science, just whining. It contains no alternative hypothesis that is backed up by theory and observations. But this is how science is done. It has proven itself a vastly superior philosophy than any other proposed over the last 400 years. If these letter-signers had a real point, they would make it in the scientific literature. (They know this, very well.) This battle was fought about 2 decades ago, and the skeptics lost. That's why they have to resort to writing letters to politicians -- they have no other option in the battle, having lost the war. They've had to resort to PR.
By the way, lots of other scientists, Nobel Laureautes too, have written their own letters proclaiming their belief in the consensus view of AGW and urging policy makers to address GW. Why aren't you linking to those letters? What is superior about the letter you quoted?
I suspect you do not have an answer.
> And, why is it the only 'fix' the > alarmist is take money from
> oredinary citizens in the form of > restrictive taxes?
Really, Lew, you must expand your horizons and stop taking your information from Rush Limbaugh.
Climate scientists have been amazingly silent about how society should address the AGW problem, except to say, of course, the carbon technologies are not a solution.
Yes, many environmental organizations have advocated a carbon tax. To them, it seems the quickest way to weaning ourselves off carbon technologies, as the science says we must. But they're open to other mitigation methods.
The fact is, taxes work. That's why politicians give a tax break to home owners with a mortgage. It encourages home ownership. Have a problem with that tax policy?? As a renter, I do -- why should I pay additional taxes so home owners can pay less? But this tax policy works.
We need to get off carbon. I am still waiting for someone's proof -- anyone here -- that the GHG levels in our atmosphere will *not* lead to GW. That's what this is about: proof, not opinion.
DAVID DAVID
I'm also offended that I'm
not the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming.
David,
I disagree that you are intitiled to tell anyone that they cannot have an opinion on global warming no matter how tongue in cheek it may be.
I suggest you visit the following sites for your edification:
www.worldclimatereport.com
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
www.co2science.org
www.icecap.us
btw I do not get my info from Rush however, I'll bet he is up on the global warming routine.
I also have a BS degree in electrical engineering.
My point has been that global warming is not a fact that should be immune from questioning nor dissent. I was making it concerning the position of state climatologist.
My other point is valid given the hysteria that people like Al Gore has made about global warming and that it is man made as a done deal no longer subject to discussion.
My last point is this is a free country and everyone has the right to speak out on any subject wheather they are right or wrong about it.
Oh I forgot this is not rocket science like you are trying to make it out to be. A good dose of common sense would tell you not to bet the farm that global warming is a sure bet and entirely man made.
btw David if anyone tells you to go away and study and come back a year later to say anything that includes common sense I'll be there to tell them you have a right to those facts and figures nomatter what and you have the right to spout them.
Al wrote:
> I'm also offended that I'm
> not the High Priest of the Church
> of Global Warming.
If you had what it takes, you might be. But obviously you don't.
Study. Learn the mathematics, the physics, the chemistry, the statistics, the meteorology, the climatology.
Analyze the ideas seriously.
Then people might take you seriously.
We are certainly not going to run this world based on the opinions of peons in the blogosphere. You included.
When you are ready to present some real science (if you can even recognize it when you see it -- I sincerely doubt it), some real evidence, some real proof -- let me know.
Kodiak wrote:
> I also have a BS degree in
> electrical engineering.
You certainly don't act like it. You thought human respiration was a significant contribution to GW. You couldn't even take 3 minutes to research the issue and find out a few facts.
You can't be proud of that. It's an embarrassment for any "educated" person, let alone someone supposedly trained in the quantitative sciences.
In college, I started out in the engineering program. I met a lot of guys who just cared about how much money they would make, and not about what they were learning. I see you're one of the former.
I switched majors right after that.
Kodiak wrote:
> www.worldclimatereport.com
> scienceandpublicpolicy.org
> www.co2science.org
> www.icecap.us
Kodiak, you only cite these cites because they support your ideology, not because they have established scientific truth. These sites exist precisely because they can't get their ideas published in the real scientific literature. co2science.org won't even tell you who sponsors them, or answer questions of any kind. It's near impossible to even find their contact information. This is not the face of an upfront scientific organization battling in the arena of scientific truth. It is the attitude of a little coward in the corner, dashing out every now and then to poke a stick somewhere, then retreating as fast as possible.
They simply are not credible. They have no alternative theories of 20th century warming. They have no models. They have no predictions of future climate given the severe perturbation to our atmosphere.
Do you?
> My point has been that global
> warming is not a fact that should > be immune from questioning nor
> dissent.
What do you mean by a "fact?" Is gravity a fact? Is quantum mechanics? Is the existence of the top quark? Is the existence of dark energy?
Please explain why the existence of dark energy has been proven but the existence of AGW has not.
> My other point is valid given > the hysteria that people like Al > Gore has made about global
> warming and that it is man made
> as a done deal no longer subject > to discussion.
It is not "hysteria." It is a recognization of the seriousness of the problem, of the fact that it is only going to get much, much worse, and of the fact that no matter what we do now it will take ~50 years to have an effect. We are the world's biggest oceanlinear pointing straight for the coast, with little room left to turn around.
> My last point is this is a free
> country and everyone has the
> right to speak out on any subject > wheather they are right or wrong > about it.
Sure. By the same token, it is our responsibility to call bullshit on bullshit, to point out ignorance, to point out that people who can't even get the most basic facts straight should have no say in the matter, as they are ill-informed and ignorant.
You, Kodiak, are ill-informed and ignorant.
PS: Why are you afraid to use your real name?
David, apparently you missed it, but what I am steering towards is that the issue is hardly decided. The debate is far from over, it is barely beginning.
Nice attempt at a low blow, though, since I haven't quoted Rush. Is that how someone who purports your intellect handles disagreement?
Seems more like Al Franken.
Please explain why the "opinion" of your scientists is better than the opinions of the scientists in the letter I posted.
Is this geophysicist and astronautical engineer to be ignored because his view differs from his? Is he to be accused of being a "dittohead" as well?
Since you have been at this "for so long," are the scientists quoted in this article to be accused of listening to Rush Limbaugh, years before he was even on the air?
FYI, I rarely hear Rush working in a noisey environment everyday.
Perhaps it is you that should expand your own horizons and stop watching reruns of Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth.'
David,
How about the total respiration of 6 billion people plus all of the animals. Would that bump up that contribution a little?
Ted Turner not long ago said that the world has too many people in it.
I would be embarrassed if the discussion was about electrical engineering. However, we are discussing global warming ie climate change that is not necessarily in my field. My discussion is not aimed at the facts for or against global warming. My aim is two fold one to point how it is being treated as a religon (ie use of terms such as excommunicate and high priest) and two point out briefly that there are factors that may or may not be predictable that can and will act as wild cards. Another point humans have programed those models and thus errors can occur.
Gravity is a fact climate models are a prediction that may become fact and you should learn the difference.
I find your claim of ideology to be funny in reference to this cite:
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Science and Public Policy is a non-partisan non-profit organization seek the truth to the cause and effect of Global Warming.
What are you impling is that everyone else is incappable of discerning bullshit and needs you to point it out. I assure no onw needs you to point out bullshit.
My my when facts and figures fail you, you resort to labels and name calling. Whats the matter sorry that you have used your real name.
Kodiak wrote:
> How about the total respiration of > 6 billion people plus all of the
> animals. Would that bump up that
> contribution a little?
Do the math for yourself. Be sure to include all the CO2 taken up by plants all across the globe.
I await your calculations.
Kodiak wrote:
> What are you impling is that
> everyone else is incappable of
> discerning bullshit and needs you
> to point it out.
No, I am implying that *you* are incapable of discerning bullshit. You are clearly incapable of doing even the simplest calculations, or doing a few minutes of research to answer your most basic questions. You have firmly demonstrated your ignorance. Still you spout off, as if your ignorant opinion means anything.
You, simply, do not know what you are talking about.
Kodiak wrote:
> scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Kodiak, tell me, what is scientifically superior about this organization? Why do you believe them and not others, other than the conclusions they reach? What is your criteria?
Would it surprise you to find out that many of the people on S&PP's staff have (and are) taking money from the oil industry?
Lew wrote:
> Please explain why the "opinion" of > your scientists is better than the > opinions of the scientists in the
> letter I posted.
Because they have proposed a hypothesis, worked out its conclusions, made predictions, and these predictions have come true.
This is the one and only criteria by which scientific statements can be judged.
There predictions include a global rise in temperatures, especially at the poles, increases in precipitation, many morphological changes that are currently taking place, and models that back-predict the last 100 yrs worth of climate date showing that natural fluctuations are insufficient to explain 20th century warming.
What hypothesis have the skeptics put forward, and what predictions have them made that have come true?
Where are their their models and their calculations showing that a 35% increase in CO2 is not consequential?
Hmm?
Lew wrote:
> Since you have been at this "for so > long," are the scientists quoted in > this article to be accused of
> listening to Rush Limbaugh, years
> before he was even on the air?
Lew, this is an article in the popular press, not the scientific literature. We all know that all kinds of crap appear in the popular literature.
Secondly, that article was written 33 years ago. Can you name me any science that has not advanced tremendously in the last 33 years? Physics? Biology? Genetics? Computer science? Technology?
Of course not. Likewise, climate science has advanced tremendously in the last 33 years. It is meaningless to judge a science based on what it said 33 years ago. Science continually advances and corrects itself.
An article written 33 years ago, especially in the popular press, means essentially nothing today.
Lew, are you at all familiar with how science is done?
Keith,
Can I assume that since you did not respond to David's response to your last, that you agree with him and have conceded?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-).
Bear,
I am still listening, I read through David's posts with great interest.
Lew,
Arguing the accuracy of the predictions, based on the science of global warming, is a completely different argument from the argument of the best (and fairest) way to address it.
You are confusing one with the other.
Dozens of scientists calls for large carbon emissions cuts:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/2008scientists_letter.html
By the standards of this group, this is all the proof that it needed.
I didn't mean that the model wasn't run backwards from the present day to see if it produced results that track with past observations... I said that a model run foward to 2050 and then run backwards from 2050 produces different starting conditions. In other words, if the model in question started out with an average global temperature of 10°C in 2000 and predicted that it would rise to, say, 14°C by 2050, you should get 10°C as the average at the year 2000. Instead, models run backwards from 2050 would say that the Earth started out at 12°C in the year 2000. Obviously, I'm using a hypothetical situation with random numbers but it's illustrative. This sort of situation means that the model is flawed because it produces different inputs than it was originally given. Like producing 0 if it was told to reverse the equation 1 + 1 = 2.
I'm not quite sure what the C13/C14 ratio is meant to prove since you didn't qualify that C13 isn't produced by nature. In fact, since C13 is a less volatile isotope (1 extra neutron instead of 2 extra), it's more likely to occur in nature. But at any rate, I didn't even mention the natural vs. manmade proportion of CO2 produced... I just pointed out that the graph doesn't prove that the rise in global temperature was caused by human activity. That two trends move in tandem isn't proof that one trend caused the other, merely that they move together. Like I said, the graph could easily mean that a rise in global temperature encouraged increased human activity rather than the other way round.
"This study is published in a notoriously anti-GW journal, "Energy & Environment," whose editor admits to being biased against the Kyoto Protocol and also says she see no problem with that."
Well and good, David. Your assertion that the journal is biased against global warming doesn't prove academic dishonesty. Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol was simultaneously ineffective and economically harmful. There's very good non-scientific reasons to ridicule it... it could cost economies trillions of dollars while reducing the predicted rise in temperature by 1/10. The good it might do is outweighed by the harm it will do.
"If you have evidence or proof against it -- experiments, calculations, models, etc. -- they present them. It's insufficient to merely claim the AGW theories are wrong until you disprove them. Also you need to explain 20th century warming, and you need to explain how a 35% increase in the GHG content of our atmosphere *does not *lead to GW."
Two problems with your challenge:
1. AGW theorists bear the burden of proof because they're contradicting the established scientific consensus as well as both occassions in the past 100 years that science has been certain that Anthropoenic Global Cooling is more likely.
2. You're demanding that Kodiak prove a negative. This is impossible to do, as you well know. It's impossible to say that there is a 100% certainty that AGW won't happen just as it's impossible to say that there is a 100% certainty that an asteroid won't crash into the Earth eventually.
Increased global temperature at the poles... you mean, like the falling temperature in Antarctica and the fact that the sea ice on the North Slope of Alaska is remaining solid longer than it previously has? Sounds like a minor hole in your vaunted experts' theories. Did they also predict that AGW would cause a bunch of glaciers to melt... while the glaciers right next to them are getting bigger? Have you heard of the actual cause of the global temperature spike in the 1990s, how the average shot up because thousands of temperature stations in the frozen wastes of Siberia were taken offline due to maintenance problems? I don't know, David, but it seems like your experts have some problems to address.
You're so bad, Eileen. :P For your info, I forgot to turn on the email notifications so I knew that the thread was being expanded.
David are YOU familiar with how science is done? How the concept of a consensus is without scientific weight? How all of these predictions are only "proven" true by modeling? Did the climate scientists predict a freak temperature drop towards the end of April that caused snow? Did they predict that the sea ice in the North Slope was remaining solid for longer than before? These are climate trends but no one has stepped forward claiming that they predicted it--because they didn't. What actual climate trend have these scientists predicted?
Keith, I know what you meant with your comment on models. Here you have merely repeated yourself.
I asked where I can read more about this. Sorry, but I can't take your word for it. So?
Also, I asked how you can explain, then, how the stable of IPCC climate models predicts the 20th century -- which they do, as I pointed out in great detail.
Keith wrote:
> But at any rate, I didn't
> even mention the natural vs.
> manmade proportion of CO2
> produced... I just pointed
> out that the graph doesn't
> prove that the rise in global
> temperature was caused by human
> activity.
The C14/C ratio proves exactly that, together with the model results I pointed out earlier (showing that natural factors alone cannot explain 20th century warming) prove this.
Keith, what is your explanation for 20th century warming?
Look, I am not going to give you a complete lesson in atmospheric chemistry here. You ask good questions, but you do not follow them up by doing the necessary learning and research.
Climate scientists are not idiots -- they are sophisticated professionals. Of course, they long ago asked themselves whether the sharp increases in atmospheric CO2 was manmade or natural. Is it a simple, basic question that any scientist would ask.
By studying the various proportions of C12, C13, and C14, they have been able to determine that most of the increase in CO2 in recent centuries is manmade.
It is not a simple argument -- it requires you to do some studying and learning. Too much, I realize, for people who prefer to just repeat what Rush Limbaugh has to say.
Otherwise, you can, of course, provide *your* theory of the drastic increases in GHGs over the last 2.5 centuries.
Where did it come from?
Please answer.
Keith Moore wrote:
> David are YOU familiar with
> how science is done?
You can Google me -- my credentials are pretty clear.
> How the concept of a consensus is > without scientific weight? How
> all of these predictions are only > "proven" true by modeling?
Keith, have you even been listening to me? The models don't solely prove the hypothesis, though they do partly. Even more important are the data collected over the past 2-3 decades on global temperatures, glacier pullbacks, species shifts, on and on and on.
> Did the climate scientists
> predict a freak temperature drop > towards the end of April that
> caused snow?
Here, Keith, is exactly where you demonstrate your ignorance.
"Climate" and "weather" are two wholly different things. I'm having to repeat myself here, and getting tired of it. Climate is not weather and climatologists do not make predictions about the weather, but the climate.
If you want to play this stupid game, though: did your group of climate skeptics predict the snows at the end of April? No? Why not? Why should we believe them then?
> What actual climate trend have
> these scientists predicted?
Keith, I won't spoon feed you, like a 3rd grader. Read the IPCC report, the 4AR. Their predictions are laid out there in great detail.
Keith Moore wrote:
> Have you heard of the actual
> cause of the global temperature
> spike in the 1990s, how the
> average shot up because
> thousands of temperature
> stations in the frozen wastes
> of Siberia were taken offline
> due to maintenance problems?
This is simply false.
You can provide documentation, I'm sure. You'll need to, because I don't believe a word of this.
How does a computer model predict a pattern that the person who's making it already knows? It's like asking how you can see a line on a standard 2-axis graph and create an equation to match it... once you know the end result, you simply create the equation that best fits it. I'm curious if the same modeling and equations that accurately document the climate patterns of the 20th century are then used to project what will happen in the next century... don't suppose you know that, do you?
You deliberately omitted the next sentence where I pointed out that the graph doesn't show cause, it shows correlation. I'm not disputing one thing the graph says... I'm asking how it proves that one out of two plausible interpretations is the only correct one. It doesn't speak well for your style of argument when you quote incompletely and then respond to the incomplete quote.
So I listen to Rush Limbaugh... I'm not the only one and I don't see what it has to do with the question. If I was just tossing out Rush Limbaugh's summary of the issue, I'm repeatedly assert that we couldn't be causing AGW accidentally because we don't know how to do it deliberately. You might notice that my assertions go a few steps beyond just what Rush Limbaugh says. Then again, I'm reasonably confident that you don't actually know Rush Limbaugh's take on the issue but simply assume that simplistic analysis is a hallmark of a Rush Limbaugh listener. Charming.
Of course it does. And you simply assert that you have this learning and whomever doubts your thesis does not. You demand proof that we know what we're talking about... where's your demonstration of it beyond clever phrasing?
Various factors, of course. The 20th century has been a period of an unusual and historically unique phenomenon: atomic testing. From the Trinity test to the dozens of tests where thousands of cubic feet of ground were blasted into the atmopshere, much of it disintegrated into a different state entirely. I'd be interested to see a report that takes this unusual phemenon into consideration. We've also had a very different pattern of forest fires. Instead of the natural type that flashes through an area and cleans up the underbrush, human management has caused the underbrush to concentrate to such a degree that the fire actually consumes trees, carbonizing them as the natural effect of fire. This causes a spike in the gaseous byproducts of fire that is wholly unique because before human management, these fires didn't consume the same fuel and burn at the same heat. Of course, human industrialization has ramped up but the emissions tend to look like a standard deviation curve as opposed to a simple 1/1 or exponential growth line. This is because economies gradually move towards service and lower-emission industries as they develop and away from as many heavy industries and, additionally, these heavy industries are forced by either public opinion or governmental hammer to develop more efficient production means that are less polluting. Naturally, also, the richer societies can afford to construct and maintain low to zero-emission electrical generating plants like nuclear fission, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, etc. that produce more electricity without the need to spew chemical poisons into the air. Finally, there is the factor that as some societies get richer, other poorer societies move towards industrialization without the benefit of riches to construct more efficient and clean power sources. Morever, these societies are unlikely to have the capability to switch over for some time yet, no matter how the hysterics sob and moan. THIS is my explanation for the increase in GHG's and the mild warming trend you refer to.
So you're a freelance writer with a PHD in physics whose major experience is business and systems engineering. You edit a publication on lasers and did graduate work in creative writing. Sterling credentials, I'm sure. So what did you learn about global warming while working on those computers, David?
Of course climate and weather are two different things. But unusual weather patterns are caused by something and I'm surprised that this something wasn't foreseen by climatologists. Wouldn't their computer models show a trend towards sudden cooling at certain latitudes and areas with certain atmopsheric characteristics? You might like to bounce off the walls telling us that what we can see and what the real facts are are two wholly different things but they are quite a bit interrelated.
I don't see it as spoon-feeding... I see it as you claiming something and being obligated to show that your claims have some basis. This means citation of chapter and verse showing that the IPCC scientists (among others) have predicted climate trends that have come into being for approximately the reasons they predicted. Condescension doesn't become you, sir editor of Laser Focus World.
I'm still trying to find the exact reference but I recall that it was contained in one of the papers of a Dr. Ross McKitrick. He demonstrated that the major rise in average temperatures from 1990 to 2000 coiincided with the showdown of approximately 10,000 monitoring stations, a lion's share of which were in colder regions. Now, you're a scientist (or something similar): what happens to an average when you remove most of the lower numbers in the data set?
Keith,
David will just quote the Global Warming Bible the IPCC report. He is a smart guy but abit farsighted as he cannot see what it right in front of him.
You have done a fair job questioning the computer models. I would be interested on how well the sun is modeled as it has the greater contribution to global warming.
David,
We do agree on one thing we need to move from dependence on fossel fuels to alternative energy sources. I just disagree that Global warming as the modivating factor.
We should not be dependent on any one source.
As a freelance writer you of all people should be questioning those who are trying to blame all of global warming as being manmade.
You should be writing about the alternatives that are current available and those that are being developed.
Did you know there are some companies in Oregon that are involved in fuel cells, solar power and wind energy?
In one post you state climate and weather is two wholly different things. Have you looked into a dictionary lately? Climate can be defined to be the average weather conditions at a place over a period of years. I'd say that climate and weather are related.
Keith,
Let me take ONE point of yours, that you insist on bringing up again.
Correlation versus Causation.
Sometimes this argument is legit and other times it borders ridiculous.
If you are going to claim that the causation needs to be reversed (in that A is causing B, instead of B causing A) you should give some example of how A would cause B; especially when there are so many examples of how B can be causing A.
How would an increase in global warming cause human activity to increase?
I can think of ONE thing, which is use of air conditioning.
But that is so minimal, compared to the other energy uses.
Do humans cut down more trees because of global warming?
Do we build more factories because of global warming?
Do more people choose to use a private vehicle because of global warming?
Having a PhD in physics certainly gives someone the ability to better understand the articles and models related to the science of how a build up of carbon effects climate.
I have said multiple times, that it baffles me how people, who I have a hard time believing actually understand the science, will debate (and argue) over the accuracy of the science.
David,
Don't you claim that one of your skills is Writing ability to communicate technical topics to experts and nonexperts alike.
But you keep telling people to go read articles, that I highly suspect, you suspect, that the person will not be able to understand.
Well, quite simply Eileen, humans basically act like most animals adapted to a temperate environment: as the environment gets warmer and lengthens growing seasons and makes it easier to work longer hours and mitigates the greater hazard of cold (cold causes substantially more hazards for humans than heat), human activity increases because the warming makes it possible. Human activity in Iceland and Greenland used to be fairly major because it got warmer. Thus, higher temperatures can cause an increase in human activity because human populations are concentrated in nondesert regions. Yes, an increase in human activity can cause warming but an increase in warming can cause an increase in human activity, especially as far as population growth and construction. Thus, a graph showing that the two move upward in tandem can't be interpreted only to mean that more human activity caused more warming. If you want more examples of what increased human activities would cause increased emissions, simply ask.
I agree, Eileen, that an advanced understanding of physics is conductive to understanding atmopsheric science but would point out that his background activities seem strongly related to a different branch of physics than atmospheric sciences occupy. But I don't argue that his qualifications mean nothing, just that he seems to rely on qualifications in a discipline covering a vast array of matters (all engineering disciplines relate to the science of physics, for example) to prove that his understanding is superior. Without further evidence (like, the branch of physics he's got a doctorate in being related to atmospheric sciences), I'm not inclined to take this on faith. Besides, I understand his arguments fairly well for having a limited understanding of the specific branch of science he's appealing to.
Keith
I am inclined to believe David, in this argument.
I think if it were colder, our behavior (the type that would increase global warming and/or carbon quantities) would be even greater.
We would be burning even more fossil fuels;
especially the places you mention, like Greenland.
Trust me, the colder it is there, the more fuel they burn.
Longer growing seasons do not increase carbon, they decrease carbon.
I am curious, what is your degree in?
Statistics?
So it is your belief that if it was colder, we'd be driving more, building more factories and power plants, being generally more active, starting controlled burns, experiencing major forest fires, etc. I'm not sure where in the country you live, Eileen, but most people aren't frantically active in the cold. Your argument simply makes no sense at all.
Isn't it the northern Nordic countries that are building most of the geothermal plants? Yanno, the ones that don't burn more fossil fuels? And where would this fossil fuel burning you're talkinga about come from? Wood fires?
History, actually, which is why I argue so strenuously about the free market... history shows its vast superiority over government meddling. It's also why I fight over global warming... I have a historical understanding of the futility of previous attempts and the historical inconsistency of the current movement. I also know where some of them are coming from, looking back at the history of their various movements. Historical understanding can inform quite a few debates. However, I happen to also be generally well-read which is why I understand what David's going on about instead of asking him what the hell he's talking about.
Keith,
Your argument makes no sense to me.
YES, people would drive more if it were colder (and walk outside less) depending on HOW MUCH colder.
But in the colder climates, yes.
We use more power when it is colder. So yes, building more power plants makes sense.
More people have heat than air conditioning.
In fact, of all the things you mentioned, only forest fires made any sense.
But those are not increased intentional human activity.
No, people wouldn't drive more when it's colder. I know this because they presently DON'T drive more when it's colder. You've got a strange view of what people generally do. And the powerplants comment is nonsense because it has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions. As to the forest fires, those are a result of greater human activity because of increasing human forest "management." The actual facts of the matter favor the interpretation that increased warmth leads to increased human activity and vice versa.
ok Keith
Give me some data, that indicates people are more likely to drive in warmer temperatures.
And do NOT give me data that shows they drive more in the summer (that is when we take vacations).
Give me data that shows if a given month, say January, is warmer, people will drive more during that same month, than if it were colder.
And then the same for August, showing that an August which is hotter, will lead to more diving than an August which is cooler.
Or pick a month.
But don't compare Summer to Winter because that is irrelevant.
We have both Summer and Winter every year.
I think you are so far from showing anything, to indicate that the increased human activity is caused by warming (as opposed to the opposite).
Point me to some real data which indicates this.
I gather that you're not really getting my point. The point isn't that people drive more or less depending upon the temperature... the point is that people are less likely to actually go out and about in colder weather unless it's neccessary. Think about it... when's the last time you've heard someone describe a hot day as being "miserable weather"? Innately, humans (like most animals) are fond of clear warm weather. They're more likely to go out and about which generally takes the form of using a car but the use of a car isn't what's affected by the temperature.
As a point of fact, Eileen, you havnen't even tried to offer a plausible reason for your theory whereas I've actually explained, even in basic terms, why warm weather is conductive to human activity. Before you start demanding evidence, come up with a reason that your belief holds more water than mine. THEN we can talk about which view has evidence.
Lew, are you at all familiar with how science is done?
Of course I am, David. But somehow, you seem to neglect that even popular media accepts articles written by scientists and authors write based upon scientists reports.
Regardless, I gave you links to scientific articles in scientific publications which you deny or ignore.
Doesn't it make you wonder why many scientists are withdrawing from the Global Warming Fearmongering?
Keith,
You brought the theory up, you presented it, not me.
You claim that data backs up your argument, I only claim that my observations don't seem to coincide with your argument (that you supposedly have data to back up, but fail to present).
Just as much as people are less willing to go out and about when the weather is very cold,
They are likely to drive instead of walk, give the kids a ride to school and other activities which require they do go out.
They then run the heaters in their vehicles.
People use fuel to heat, and more of it when it is colder (less when it is warmer).
More people use heat than air conditioning, although there are some areas where more air conditioning is used due to warmer temperatures.
Now if you can show me meaningful data, that contradicts my own observations, I am willing to consider that data.
My viewpoint is always subject to change, when presented with data I have not yet considered.
You have yet to provide David with the evidence he asked for as well.
(Although I doubt he is even reading this anymore.)
The theory that cold weather caused people to drive more? No, that was YOUR invention. My theory is that warming treads cause an increase in GHG-producting human activity. You seemingly haven't felt the need to refute what I'm actually arguing.
I'll present the data you want when you address the theory I'm presenting. Tis simple enough.
And yes, I did present that data David asked for. You apparently didn't notice this but that's your problem.
No Keith,
You are mixing up Invention with Observation.
Lets back up, and take your theory:
warming treads cause an increase in GHG-producing human activity
My Observation (and what I can deduce from my own logic, combined with what I observe) I am refuting your statement and offering my own observations.
1) I observe that people use more heat when it is colder, and less heat when it is warmer.
2) Production of heat, is a GHG producing human activity.
Do you disagree with either part of this statement?
You claim that people going out and about more in warmer weather increases their GHG producing activities.
Did I stretch that to driving myself, and ask for data?
hmmm,
Well yes I did, because it was the only activity that I could think of, that people would be doing while they were out and about more, that is GHG producing (more so than if they were inside).
Since it is not driving, What activity is it, that they are doing, out and about, that is GHG-producing.
I guess I need you to answer this before I can ask the next question.
(I already read the fire theory, I am not convinced that it counteracts the increased fuel consumption to keep warm. Only accidental fires would contribute, because controlled burns would occur either way. I don't think humans make a decision to have more controlled burns because it is warmer outside.)
However, if you have some data, that shows this, I might look at it.
1. Generally true.
2. Dependent upon the source. Heat pumps produce no GHG's, propane/natural gas produces minimal, heavy oil produces more. It's not a reliable measurement unless you have a precise breakdown at your fingertips.
You're generally talking about specific actions in response to weather. I'm talking about general reations in response to long-term climate trends in a historical sense. After all, the graph I was talking about is a historical measurement. Yes, increased travel is one of many examples of increased human activity over the long view but you concentrate on it alone and thus miss the entire point.
Keith,
As I wrote, you need to do some serious study of atmospheric chemistry. It is too long and too complex to repeat here. But you need to understand how the measurements of the various isotopes of carbon prove where the carbon is coming from.
Climate scientists thought through all this decades ago. As an amateur, you are very unlikely to undo their professional results. These guys are good, as the commercial says. You might as well be attacking the tectonic plate theory of geology, or the quark theory of physics.
It's just not something I'm willing to waste my time on, until you've demonstrated some knowledge of the subject. Sorry.
Keith,
We are talking about human behavior, specifically, based on your claim that increased temperature, is causing increased human behavior, of the sort that produces GHGs.
Now all of the sudden, I am talking about human behavior in response to weather?
Huh?
Yea, when talking about scientific models, and climate change, predicting the actual weather on any given day is not part of the model.
When I make a behavior decision, based on how hot it is, it is based on the weather, not on the historical climate change.
General reactions in response to long term climate change in a historical sense
Related to human behavior that creates GHGs?
Please clarify.
Please give me some data to back this up (not something you spew, but something you can reference).
So... I'm responsible for doing the research to prove your (unsourced and uncited) claim. Brilliant. And you expect me to take you seriously? Sorry, David, you don't get the privilage of being taken seriously when you dismissively demand that someone else do the work to track down your sources and prove your claims.
There's no reference needed to prove a commonsense assertion, much like you don't need to cite sources to prove that the sun rises in the east. Warmer climate is conductive to population growth. Population growth, and the attendent increase in human acitivites and resource r